All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you very much for submitting your work to the journal. The reviewers are satisfied with the revisions.
The authors have sincerely addressed all my suggestions. The manuscript in its current form may be accepted.
Acceptable
Acceptable
Nil
no comments
Study is appropriately designed
Method is valid and reliable
It might be worth expanding in line 35 what percentage had thrombocytopenia in those 119 patients and between 37-38 to give timeline abstract as well
Please use full form in line 102 and line 116- I appreciate authors providing the asked insight
subject selection is appropriate and variables well defined. Authors presented detail to replicate the study
Conclusion answers the aim of study
Conclusion is supported by results and well correlated with existing evidence via references
Limitation are well described which brings opportunity for future research
1. It is a complication which needs attention.
2. Research question is clearly outlined
3. It is well justified to explore this field
4. Study is appropriately designed
5. Method is valid and reliable
6. It might be worth expanding in line 35 what percentage had thrombocytopenia in those 119 patients and between 37-38 to give timeline abstract as well- Thank you
7. Please use the full form in line 102 and line 116- thank you
8. subject selection is appropriate and variables well defined. Authors presented great detail in order to replicate the study
9. Results are clearly stated
10. Data is presented in a clear and appropriate manner for international readers
11. Results are discussed nicely to correlate with existing evidence and how it fits with their study. Between 281 and 284, it might be good idea for authors to elaborate on how early diagnosis/prediction can alter the course of treatment by giving evidence of what pathway treatment must change to improve survival/treatment- I appreciate authors making the addition
12. Conclusion answers the aim of study
13. Conclusion is supported by results and well correlated with existing evidence via references
14. Limitation are well described which brings opportunity for future research
Thank you very much for submitting this important study to PeerJ. Overall, the reviewers had a very favorable review regarding your manuscript. However, several points were raised. Most importantly, please add details regarding the model construction to improve replicability.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Reviewer Comments:
1. The work presented in the manuscript is both interesting and highly valuable in the medical field. The research conducted by the authors has the potential to contribute significantly to the advancement of medical knowledge and practice.
2. The authors have done an excellent job of presenting their findings in a clear, unambiguous, and technically accurate manner. The manuscript is well-structured, and the information provided is concise and easy to comprehend. This approach enhances the overall readability of the article and ensures that the key points are effectively communicated.
3. The technical accuracy of the manuscript is commendable.
1. The results presented in this study are compelling and persuasive. The data and findings provided offer substantial support to the authors' claims and conclusions.
2. However, I strongly suggest that the authors provide additional details about the models utilized for analysis, rather than solely mentioning the software packages employed. By including specific information about the models, such as their architecture, parameters, and any modifications made, the authors can enhance the clarity and transparency of their research methodology.
3. It is crucial for the readers to have a comprehensive understanding of the authors' entire body of research. Therefore, by incorporating the aforementioned model details, the authors can facilitate the readers' comprehension and enable them to reproduce or build upon the study in a more informed manner.
Overall, I find the presented results to be convincing. However, I encourage the authors to address this specific concern by including comprehensive information about the models used, thereby strengthening the research and facilitating a better understanding of the study for the readers.
no comments
Study is appropriately designed
Method is valid and reliable
It might be worth expanding in line 35 what percentage had thrombocytopenia in those 119 patients and between 37-38 to give timeline abstract as well
Please use full form in line 102 and line 116
subject selection is appropriate and variables well defined. Authors presented great detail in order to replicate the study
Conclusion answers the aim of study
Conclusion is supported by results and well correlated with existing evidence via references
Limitation are well described which brings opportunity for future research
1. It is a complication which needs attention.
2. Research question is clearly outlined
3. it is well justified to explore in this field
4. Study is appropriately designed
5. Method is valid and reliable
6. It might be worth expanding in line 35 what percentage had thrombocytopenia in those 119 patients and between 37-38 to give timeline abstract as well
7. Please use full form in line 102 and line 116
8. subject selection is appropriate and variables well defined. Authors presented great detail in order to replicate the study
9. Results are clearly stated
10. Data is presented in clear and appropriate manned for international readers
11. Results are discussed nicely to correlate with existing evidence and how it fits with their study. Between 281 and 284, it might be good idea for authors to elaborate on how early diagnosis/prediction can alter the course of treatment by giving evidence of what pathway treatment must change to improve survival/treatment
12. Conclusion answers the aim of study
13. Conclusion is supported by results and well correlated with existing evidence via references
14. Limitation are well described which brings opportunity for future research
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.